Paul, when I decided to write my e-book, in the spring of 2001, I knew I undertook something that has to overcome great difficulties to become successful, I pointed that out myself in the book and several times on my website in the years that followed. Founding a BCPP and realizing its aims will be very, very hard, even if I had had a 1,000 enthusiastic replies. Yet 'very hard' is not the same as 'impossible', and if I believed this effort to have failed, I think I would be man enough to admit it.

Yet such is the strength of my belief in the revival of Christianity, and such is my belief in the potential of the United Kingdom to make a new beginning on the basis of constructive values, and such is my belief in the potential of the internet to make people aware of the confusing influences of TV, film and the other old media, that I am not afraid to tell I only received about fifteen e-mails, knowing that this low number would lead people to think my initiative a failure. (I already mentioned this number in 2004.)

I know there is a Christian party in Britain, and there are such parties in my country too. The cabinet we have now consists of three parties, two of them carrying the word Christian in their names. People however interpret Christianity's foundation, the New Testament, in different ways and so Christian politicians, and politicians calling themselves Christian, will arrive at different ideas about what Christian policies are.

You are indeed qualified to talk about your experiences, they are experiences that I lack.

Your particular reading habits and the activities of the academics you are acquainted with don't undermine in the least what I have written in my previous posting. You can not seriously pretend to know how all of the 1000s of academics I mailed spend their time. A number of the recipients will not have read me, and those who have read me will have had various judgements on my text. To me, it doesn't matter whether the non-readers and the non-reacters form an overwhelming majority or not. I have put my hopes on those among the recipients, and their networks, who are as much worried about the negative developments the European peoples seem to be trapped in as I am.

You write you are in doubt whether to start a new political party 'in an overcrowded marketplace'. In the last decades, it has become common practice to describe politics with terms and phrases derived from capitalism, but I never will. My ideas are not products and our countries are not companies.

There are indeed a lot of politicians who say they are 'patriots' and I don't find that surprising, because it is a word that sounds positive. So what is needed are thorough-going discussions about what these politicians actually do or don't do in relation to what they say, to help the general public make up their minds what their parties actually mean by 'patriotic'. I think that the internet is the best medium for such discussions.

About the fact I never get counterarguments: it is very well possible that a number of recipients read my text, then felt intellectually challenged to think of counterarguments, yet had to conclude they couldn't find any, but didn't send me an e-mail. Mind you, I am saying: it is possible. I am not claiming that this has happened, I can not know that of course, but rationally, it can't be ruled out either. You on the other hand pretend to know for sure this didn't happen. So I don't think you are unfair, but you do resort to an unfounded assumption here.

In the same way, it is also possible I have readers who could send me long interesting e-mails indicating my theory hit the bull's eye, but don't, for the simple reason they don't want me to succeed, or because they fear it might jeopardize their position in society.

Finally, if a stranger from a far land sent me an e-book urging me to found the International Atheists Party, I would tell him that God does exist, but I would be a good sport and advise him to contact that insecure apostle of atheism, Professor Richard Dawkins, the author of 'The God Delusion'.

Kind regards,
Richard

Britain faces the threat of Anglocide
Long live the Jews, down with Torahismwww.ibcpp.org.uk

There are a huge number of small, effectively single issue parties that frequently fail to make any impact whatsoever at election time. The only small party with any success is the Greens but only in a very atypical part of the country. Starting yet another new party when the Christian Party already exists is wasting your time. You may consider it different but the electorate will not.

It is far better to use more effective campaigning techniques to try to convince those with real power or a realistic potential of it i.e. the big three parties. A summary of your ideas would make a good start...

Ron, the things you wrote 4th August make me almost urge you to read my book. Only then you will get a better view on what we are up against, and you will look at the Greens and the Christian Party with other, better informed eyes.

About your suggestion to try to convince the big parties: Both the Labour and the Conservative Party must know about my initiative. They almost certainly found out about my e-mail action through the many contacts they have with academics, and if they didn't, there is my letter to the then PM Mr Blair in 2004, and my recent letter to PM Mr Cameron. Yet so far, I haven't heard Labour nor the Tories ever warn the British people against Torahism, and the mainstream political parties in my country don't either.

This is what has to happen, in my opinion:

1. The European peoples need to be re-evangelized. I am perhaps as much a sinner as the next guy, but that doesn't matter right now. What matters is the truth of this message, regardless of the personal flaws of the messenger, so I repeat: the European peoples need to be re-evangelized. (In fact, the Christian message is meant for the happiness of the whole of mankind, but let's not overdo it, for the time being....) When we take a copy of the New Testament, we are holding the treasure of the right ideas for a happy future for our nations in our hands, whether we realize it or not, and many of us won't realize it, because Christianity is nowadays burdened by a negative image. There is a tremendous amount of confusion in society about what Christianity stands for.

2. We have got to get rid of a number of ideas that have become dominant in the opinion climate since the 1960s. The opinion climate is the product of what's being broadcast and printed through televison, film, newspapers and the other old media. We have to muster the courage to defy the negative labels that will be sticked upon us, once we denounce these mainstream ideas, but we have to get rid of them. They may have a positive, modern image, but they work out destructively in reality, in my view. Again, we'll find the better ideas in the New Testament. The UK's flag wasn't designed on the basis of Christian crosses for nothing.

3. The taboo on the existence of Torahism has to be broken. This has to be done with great care. Torahism is a religion annex world view that's being transferred through relentless indoctrination from one generation of Jews to the next, against their will, as this indoctrrination starts at the age of five, thus in the defenceless minds of innocent children. So it has to be done with great care, with great endurance, with great understanding for the justified sensitivities of the Jewish people, living inside and outside Israel, but it has to be done. I am in favour of swift and heavy punishments of those who resort to violence once the taboo is broken.

Again, the old parties never warn us against Torahism and neither do the old media. That silence benefits Torahism only, that needs silence and invisibility to enhance its "successes", and that silence is of course a bad thing for the victims of Torahism, namely your people, my people the Dutch, and the other European peoples. Their silence is one strong indication that the old parties and the old media are on the side of Torahism, not on the side of its victims.

4. Once we enter the stage that the re-evangelization catches on, that the overall opinion climate is changing for the better, that the overall mentality of our peoples is becoming more Christian yet again, then we can begin to scrap bad laws and to pass better ones accordingly. The better morale first, the better laws later, but I predict we will need less laws then.

5. All of this will probably take decades to realize, and it will pose enormous difficulties for the personal lifes of those who will actively engage in this, but I believe it must be done and it can be done, with the aid of the internet. Not only the happiness and the prosperity of our peoples are at stake, but even their very existence (!)

I propose we discuss one point at a time, and so, the issue of the re-evangelization to begin with.

Kind regards,
Richard

Britain faces the threat of Anglocide
Long live the Jews, down with Torahismwww.ibcpp.org.uk

Both the Labour and the Conservative Party must know about my initiative. They almost certainly found out about my e-mail action through the many contacts they have with academics, and if they didn't, there is my letter to the then PM Mr Blair in 2004, and my recent letter to PM Mr Cameron. Yet so far, I haven't heard Labour nor the Tories ever warn the British people against Torahism, and the mainstream political parties in my country don't either.

Richard I appreciate the work you are putting in, but you cannot assume because you have written to the PM that his party is aware of your letter. I have had 2 recent responses from David Cameron's office, but I doubt that the Tory party is even vaguely aware of what I have written. The PM receives thousands of letters every week. He doesn't sit down with the party apparat and discuss them individually. Because I am a consitutuent my letters on constituency matters do get discussed generically. That is, they are discussed alongside those of constituents who share the same interest. My letter on the closure of Witney Magistrates' Court was answered by what appears to be a standard letter to those of us who wrote on the subject. I suspect DC has been briefed locally about the issue. The only difference for me is that David Cameron always writes to me using my first name and signs himself off as David, but then I've known him for years.

Although you have written to many people not all of them discuss their mail with the political parties they belong to, although I am certain that if you wrote to several academics in the same Uni they would have discussed the fact of your correspondence in the common rooms. As I said, during the election campaign I received a number of e-mails that had been circulated to all Parliamentary candidates. I didn't discuss them with the other candidates and only briefly mentioned them to my election agent, who is also my girlfriend. I suspect that the Tory hierarchy, like the Labour one before it, will be too busy focussing on their own issues to worry about unsolicited outside influences. It never ceases to amaze me what people discuss and don't discuss, but don't be disappointed if people don't read your book. If it's any consolation the book, 'The Change We Choose, Speeches 2007-2009' by Gordon Brown, released by Mainstream publishing in April has, at the time of the latest edition of Private Eye going to print, sold 32 copies. This is a man who has just been Prime Minister. If he can only sell 32 copies of his speeches in 4 months, and people buy it voluntarily, why would people read and discuss your book when it arrived unsolicited in the e-mail?

You doubt whether the Conservative Party knows about my letter to PM Mr Cameron. Yet, Mr Cameron is the leader of his party, so if he knows about my initiative, I can safely say his party knows of it. The same goes for Mr Blair and the Labour Party, of which he was the leader in 2004.

So here is where we are now: you think it unlikely the parties know about my e-mail action and my letters to their PMs, but I think they do, given the seriousness of the subjects I write about and the well-argued warning I e-mailed. I mean, I don't want to diminish the importance of the local issues you dedicate your skills and energy to, but I am writing about the possibility of genocide through psychological warfare here.

But why should you and I bog down in a fruitless discussion about who might know what? I'll simply ask the chairmen and chairwomen of a number of parties. But before I inquire whether they know about my texts or not, I will have to address them about a far more important issue. I will publish that letter on this website on Tuesday, August the 17th, send it to them by mail and by e-mail, and publish the replies.

I recognize your amazement about what people discuss and don't discuss.

My e-mail action can indeed be called an 'unsolicited outside influence', but my unsolicited outside influence amounts to a well-argued warning against a formidable danger, and those who read me and feel better informed now, won't care whether the warning came from within the UK itself, from the Netherlands or from Polynesia. Again, when I made the effort, I put my hopes on those among my recipients who, regardless of their number, feel committed to the well-being of the British people, and again, you can't possibly know there were no such recipients.

If someone in the past ever sent me two e-mails titled 'The Netherlands are going down the drain (1/2)' and 'The Netherlands are going down the drain (2/2)', I would certainly have opened them and read at least the first page and the table of contents, because the e-mail title would have reminded me of the similar headline I gave to my 1999 internet pamphlet.

When a former Labour PM is only able to sell 32 copies of his compiled speeches in 4 months time, then that's only underlining the enormous mental gap that exists between that party and the people, I think.

To come back to my previous posting: the European peoples need to be re-evangelized. Everyone agrees?

Kind regards,
Richard

Britain faces the threat of Anglocide
Long live the Jews, down with Torahismwww.ibcpp.org.uk

You doubt whether the Conservative Party knows about my letter to PM Mr Cameron. Yet, Mr Cameron is the leader of his party, so if he knows about my initiative, I can safely say his party knows of it. The same goes for Mr Blair and the Labour Party, of which he was the leader in 2004.

I'm sorry, you're now coming over as delusional. You are detached from our political system and the nature of our politicians. I was drinking with a former Tory adviser on Monday night and he has never mentioned your initiative in the years I have known him. I'm sure he would have had he known. David Cameron didn't mention it once during the recent general election and it wasn't mentioned in his acceptance speech on election night (I know, I was standing just out of camera shot on the night), so I don't think it is a priority for him. I know many, many politicians of all shades and none of them has mentioned your initiative. Honestly, regardless of your personal belief in the strength or importance of your arguments and research, no politician mentions his postbag to his whole party as a matter of course. I've written to many senior politicians and have had personal replies, but nobody else apart from their advisers would know of my letters to them. In the same way that, when I have been a member of political parties, no leader has ever made me privy to the mail he has received.

I reiterate, neither the Conservative nor Labour parties are aware of your letters to their leaders.